New Zealand has made a concerted effort to support the Ukrainian people. But Richard Jackson and John Hobbs ask why Ukraine, and not other situations where the application of the rule of law is equally urgent?
That New Zealand has taken proactive steps and played its part in putting pressure on Russia to reverse its course, as much as a small state might do, is admirable given the horrific events unfolding in Ukraine.
New Zealand has passed legislation targeting Russian individuals, placed tariffs on Russian imports, provided military and intelligence support to its Western allies, and provided financial support to the Office of the Human Rights High Commissioner, the International Court of Justice, and the International Criminal Court (ICC). It is one of a number of states requesting that the ICC consider the atrocities against civilians in Ukraine as war crimes.
In justifying these measures, Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern has said that the New Zealand Government is motivated by its values and rightly argues that the rule of law be applied to those who ignore it, in this case Russia. She also argues that this is the right thing to do, as it aids stability in the region.
While some might question the extent to which such measures genuinely promote stability, few would question that New Zealand has made a concerted effort to support the Ukrainian people.
However, this country's spirited response does beg the question of why Ukraine, and not other situations where the application of the rule of law is equally urgent. The large-scale human suffering in Yemen, Syria, Afghanistan, Myanmar, Western Sahara and Palestine are equally pressing but have never been given anything like the attention given to Ukraine now.
The issue of Palestine is particularly pertinent. Its people have been subject to a harsh and illegal occupation for the past 74 years, along with military rule, land confiscations, home demolitions, invasive search procedures, occupation walls and fences, military assaults, restrictions on movement, and almost daily killings by Israeli settlers and the Israeli Defence Force.
A series of recent reports by the world’s leading human rights organisations, including Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, and B’Tselem have all concluded that Israeli practices amount to crimes of apartheid against the Palestinian people under international law. And yet New Zealand’s response to this situation has been tokenistic at best.
There are multiple factors at play for the Government when it decides which international conflicts to throw its weight behind. In the case of Ukraine there is the enormity of the human rights abuses New Zealand must respond to.
There is considerable pressure both domestically and internationally for us to be seen to be doing something. Internationally, New Zealand is a small ex-colonial state embedded in the Anglosphere Western Alliance (United States, United Kingdom, Australia, and Canada), clearly responding to its various alliance-oriented responsibilities to offer up military, intelligence, and financial support.
A series of recent reports by the world’s leading human rights organisations, including Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, and B’Tselem have all concluded that Israeli practices amount to crimes of apartheid against the Palestinian people under international law. And yet New Zealand’s response to this situation has been tokenistic at best.
It is a combination of these factors that explains why New Zealand is more willing to get involved in some disputes over others, even as it insists that it practises an independent, principled and international law-supporting foreign policy.
The Palestinian issue is a pertinent case in point, illustrating how it results in a different response from that of Ukraine. On the one hand, it weighs up the human rights (and economic) benefits arising from supporting Palestine’s desire for sovereignty and balances this against the requirements and obligations it has to its Western alliance partners. None of its alliance partners have supported the Palestinian desire for statehood through the United Nations Security Council.
However, rather than confront the issue head on, New Zealand ducks it by saying it doesn’t get drawn into state recognition as a matter of policy and that questions of sovereignty should be dealt with once the parties - Palestine and Israel - agree on defined borders. This wasn’t an issue for 139 of the 193 members of the United Nations who have given formal recognition of Palestine as a state. Loyally following its alliance partners, New Zealand continues to defer recognition of the Palestinian nation.
However, at the same time, New Zealand wants to be seen to be a good international citizen amongst smaller and more vulnerable states. So, in a recent UN General Assembly vote New Zealand, along with 162 other members, supported a resolution which “reaffirms the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination, including the right to their independent State of Palestine”. It can do this, as it doesn’t generate any diplomatic risks with its Western alliance partners; because in the end, General Assembly resolutions are always subject to a veto in the Security Council. This deft positioning in effect squares the diplomatic circle. New Zealand supports the Palestinian desire for statehood, but not at all.
Minister of Defence, Peeni Henare, has stated: "New Zealand may be a long way from Europe, but we know that such a blatant attack on a country’s sovereignty is a threat to all of us. That’s why we are doing our bit to support Ukraine."
In order to live up to its self-proclaimed principled, independent and international law supporting approach to foreign policy, New Zealand must be much more consistent in choosing which conflicts to engage in. At the very least, it must do its bit to support the rights of Palestinians against their powerful, militarily aggressive neighbour, just like it supports the rights of the people of Ukraine.
